The Pew Survey and Evangelical Mission in Catholic Quebec
From the March Lausanne World Pulse comes this story which illustrates and illuminates many of the issues raised by the Pew survey last week.
It is the story of an attempt by a French speaking evangelical couple (Michel and Lyne Monnette) to "plant a church" in one of the poorest areas of urban Canada: Hochma, the area of Montreal east of downtown. Even this initial sentence reveals a world of difference between the assumptions that evangelicals operate on and those that Catholics take for granted. So let me try to explain.
Before the 1960's, Quebec was one of the most Catholic places on earth. The perfect integral society in which the Catholic Church ran or strongly influenced almost everything. I have a post here on Quebec's amazing Catholic heritage from which I'd like to quote a bit:
It was actually in the late 19th century that the practice of Catholicism reached unprecedented heights in Quebec. In 1840, only 50 -60% of French Catholics did their "Easter duty" (received communion at Easter), by 1896 the percentage was a staggering 98 - 99%! 18 new religious congregations were formed during this 60 year period and nearly 50% of those graduating from the many classical colleges became priests. Only Catholic schools were permitted in Quebec, the only form of marriage was Catholic. The Church controlled health care, education, and charitable services. By the late 19th century, the Church had become the State in many ways.
The early 20th century was a time of intense Christianization of all aspects of French Catholic society. Dozens of Catholic colleges and associations, a vast number of social action groups - including a Catholic temperence movement led by the Church (oh my!), Catholic unions and cooperatives were actively supported by the Church. There were a number of strong Catholic newspapers and even a vast network of movie theatres in Church basements.
In the end, new media brought in outside influences and the Church, in any case, could not financially support and provide the personnel to staff all these institutions.
The essay ends with this poignant, sobering paragraph summing up Catholic fortunes since 1960.
"The election of the Liberals of Jean Lesage in 1960 unleashed the floodgates of change. This change was so sudden and widespread that it received the name of Quiet Revolution. In this period of modernization of Quebec no institution was to suffer more than the Roman Catholic Church. Values, ideas and institutions from the past were all questioned; these had all been anchored by the Church. Language replaced Faith as the pillar of survival and distinctiveness of Quebec. The State took over schools and hospitals (all were to eventually be deconfessionalised) and churches nearly emptied completely. Within ten years Quebec went from being the province with the highest birthrate in Canada to having the lowest! The society became profoundly secularized and Church influence fell to nearly nothing."
We must remember that everyone involved - the evangelists and those evangelized - are probably from a Catholic background. Their parents were raised Catholic if they were not. A 2001 survey showed that Quebec was still 83% Catholic. But only 4% of French speaking Quebecois (90% of the population) attend Mass weekly while 9-10% of English speaking Catholics attend Mass every week.
Back to our evangelical "church planters" the Monnettes. Notice the basics:
1. They are lay. A married couple with three children. They see nothing odd about undertaking this initiative and the risks that go with it even though they are responsible for three children. They assume that growing up amid the poor will be good for their children.
2. They assume that they have the right to start a local congregation.
3. Their denominational affiliation (if any) and their "ordination" status (they may not be) is not considered important and not mentioned.
4. They are part of a global "church planting" movement and have been thinking about, actively researching this possibility and learning from other church planters for at least 8 years. (For more on the movement of church planting)
5) They are doing this out a sense of specific personal call.
6) Their purpose is to "incarnate Jesus" in order to evangelize people, the culture, and the structures of their area.
7) They assume that they must go out to the people they seek to reach. They do not expect the residents of Hochma to come to them.
8) They assume that they must be innovative to be effective. They are crafting their approach very deliberately to speak to the unique realities and needs of this unique community to which they feel specifically called. They clearly believe that there is no "one size fits all" approach.
7) They are relationship and community-focused, rather than building or institutionally focused. They know that the people of Hochma are very suspicious of "the institutional church" (which in Quebec can only mean the Catholic Church). Their community is small and informal. They are offering an experience of Christian community rather than an institution. Small is beautiful and powerful.
9) Personal, spiritual, and community transformation are at the center of their mission and their criteria of what it means to be "faithful".
10) They have actively pursued collaboration with the Catholic church and local Protestant churches in their mission. Old denominational divides are not important.
It is too early yet to know what impact, if any, the Monettes will have in Hochma. But in light of the Pew survey results and without jettisoning or minimizing a single bit of Church teaching, is there anything we can learn from them and people like them?
posted by Sherry W @ 5:52 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
The thing that Catholics have to deal with that Prot church planters don't is the need for ordained clergy for the sacraments.
In early missionary days (well, throughout most of history as the Faith spread), people didn't expect to have the sacraments available all the time, nearby. You could "plant" a Catholic community, and then the priest could move on, returning in 3 months or 6. Which is, of course, still the case in much of the rest of the world.
But it's not what Western Catholics are used to, and I can't see "church planting" sans clergy.
Grace
I'm not sure how the situation in Quebec squares with the Pew survey, because you're really not talking about people leaving the Catholic Church for evangelical churches or missions. These are people who have left the Church a generation ago. They are unchurched. They are deeply prejudiced against the Catholic Church and probably never even consider that an option when they feel the stirrings of faith.
Even among those who never left the Church, the catechesis has been ineffective, and for many, their connection to Catholicism is tenuous at best.
Having said that, as discussed in the Pew thread, we do have to meet people where they are at, and their attraction to Church X or Church Y can point us to our own weaknesses. It's not that we have to change the Catholic Church to accomodate those who are leaving, as some seem to have suggested, but it does point us to where we are not getting our message across.
I think we have turned a corner in Quebec, but it will take some time to know for sure. Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec City has shown the courage and leadership that has long been needed, and the upcoming Eucharistic Congress will hopefully stir things up a bit.
Regina:
So you are from Quebec? Wonderful to have a commenter who has some first hand knowledge.
You seem to be saying that alienation from the Church that those Catholics who left a generation ago is so deep that standard Catholic evangelization approaches won't work. As we say in Making Disciples, the first threshold of beginning trust isn't there and must be rebuilt before anything else can happen.
It also sounds like the initial evangelization even of the practicing is a priority.
Why do you think Quebec has turned a corner? Any other hopeful signs in addition to those you have already mentioned?
Is there anything Catholics can do to rebuild this trust? Could we collaborate in initiatives like the one described in the article? The Mennettes seem open to working with Catholics.
My interest in this topic lies in the fact that evangelical movements are attracting people back into Christianity, but with some underlying prejudices built in, not to mention an inbred resistance to the sacramental principle found in the Scriptures and taught in the Catholic gospel (John 6, etc.). I used to pastor a church that was a part of the Church Growth movement until I converted to the Catholic faith in 1996. My wife, who did not convert with me, still remains a part of the denomination of which I associated. We discuss evangelization methods at times, but too often we disagree. Not so much over the need to evangelize, but how to do it.
What I have found is that the principles and doctrines espoused by evangelicals influences the types of methods used. My concern, as a Catholic, is that if we Catholics adopt hands down, the methods that seem to "work" for evangelicals, we may unwittingly jeopardize what we communicate to our listeners. Case in point, if the sacramental principle is front and center of our life, primarily the Eucharist, then we need to find ways to communicate to others that is Eucharistic in nature and incorporates them into the Catholic Church body. Which means, we need to show our listeners that faith in Christ includes the divinization that Christ intends for us. We cannot employ an "accept Jesus and you'll be saved" approach. Our gospel message must show that salvation in Christ is a participation of our entire being in the life of the Trinity, which is culminated in continuous Communion with Jesus in the Sacraments, which requires participation in the life of the Church. This automatically implies a catechumenate stage of belief that the ancient Church adopted.
So I don't think "Church Planting" methods are completely transferable. My brain child is to do something similar to what the "Church Planters" do, but have it be an entry point for converts to enter RCIA. I haven't worked out the details yet, but I don't want to give the impression that believers can create a church that is disembodied from the Church universal. This would be a recipe for future division. However, I think the type of converts we need to bring to RCIA must be truly converted; this means we have people who have fallen in love with Christ and are chomping on the bit to enter full communion in the Church. And after their entry, find places for these highly motivated people to work in the New Evangelization.
So I am glad that evangelization is taking place. I think we need to, as Catholics, see what can be employed without damaging our message, and what should be altered so that converts and the Catholic gospel are both served.
Any else's thoughts on this?
Just Another Beggar,
How about Liturgical Evangelization? In Sacramentum caritatis, Pope Benedict said that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. So it seems that we cannot preach Jesus without referring to His presence in the Eucharist, which is the place where we know Him best.
And all the best to you,
Janice
Sherry,
It used to be too easy to be Catholic, and people took it for granted. Until about 10 years ago, I would guess that about 70 percent of the public schools were Catholic. Laws were passed and there are no longer any Catholic schools, except for a handful of private schools.
In some ways this has been good, because it has forced the Church to be proactive. We now have parish-based religious education, which is growing and is generally pretty good. It means that people have to choose to be Catholic and that reception of the sacraments is not automatic. This is bringing life to some parishes, drawing young families into the active parish community.
It has also brought to light the poor catechesis that these parents have themselves received, and the challenge to meet their needs as well as their children's. I know the Montreal Archdiocese is currently training people for Adult Faith Formation, and I presume other dioceses are doing likewise.
I don't know how this is actually affecting the number of practicing Catholics, but at the parish level, it seems to be having a positive effect.
Although clearly a minority, there are some families who are rediscovering their faith, and I am hopeful that this is a trend.
I'm not sure about working with other denominations/non-denominations, but I do agree that you have to meet people where they are, so from that point of view, it's probably necessary. More important, I think, is to adopt that model of reaching out, while maintaining our Catholic identity.
Janice:
I agree!
The challenge is this: until parishes become evangelistically inclined, which will be a Herculean task in itself, how do we evangelize liturgically? We who are a part of dead parishes can't wait for this. Also, most irreligious, if they are looking for more formal teaching of the faith, would have difficulty sitting through a Mass, especially when homilies lack the substance of the Catholic Gospel. In comparison, Church Growth churches offer a more open atmosphere that allows the seeker to remain anonymous while looking into the Christian religion. They don't need to make any commitments, yet they feel accepted and loved by the community. They have the freedom to investigate Christianity in a way they understand.
Why don't we try to do this? I have heard so many Catholics use the St. Francis quote, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words." It is used in a manner that I'm sure deviates from Francis' meaning, where there isn't much emphasis on using words at all. We Catholics think we have the living part of preaching down pat...we let the Protestants choose when to use words; and they USE them! People seeing our good works and hearing the Protestants good words end up in Protestant churches.
In my jealousy for Christ and His Church, I think it's high time we stop this trend.
Just Another Beggar,
The challenge is to make people realize that their goal and objective is to know Jesus in the Eucharist and in the Word itself, not in the preaching per se(there's a new document that will be the subject of the 2008 Synod of Bishops, which is on the Word; URL is: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20070427_lineamenta-xii-assembly_en.html).
The Mass is primarily an encounter with Christ, not really an opportunity for fellowship (a congregation). I think that's the greatest difference with Protestantism. Perhaps that's the greatest stumbling block as well.
I think another useful thing is to discuss the Church, not in institutional terms, but as the presence of Christ among us.
Janice
I hope that we can lead converts to the objective you mention. I think there needs to be then, a sort of pre-evangelism, a ramp of sorts that takes the modern and post-modern mind and help it rethink reality in essentialist terms. Kant, Hume, etc. and the Religion of Science has so affected the modern mind, that we Catholic evangelizers have to dismantle the flawed thinking that pervades our culture. I'm not sure that the Mass is the primary or sole way to evangelize the unchurched even though the very presence of Jesus is before them. They don't have the faith or knowledge to understand its meaning. I think it needs to be included, but when? And, what needs to take place before?
I don't know about pre-evangelization. Do you mean just Jesus Christ without the Church or just giving them a Bible? To me, anyway, the problem is that it's not Catholic theology you're giving them, but Protestant theology.
The problem of getting beyond modernity and post-modernity is going back to premodernity. It's all nomenclature, anyway. There's really no progression from one to the next, except as Kant defined it or as postmodernists have defined it. Premodern thinking would take people back to a different order of things, with an acknowledgement of the religious roots of society, etc.
You know, a book that shows the differences very clearly is Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness. He's a Free Church member and he dialogues with Joseph Ratzinger and John Zizioulas. He regards, correctly, that Ratzinger has reformulated premodern traditions in contemporary language. I don't think I'm really getting to the heart of your question, but this book might help. You might also take a look at Ratzinger's books on liturgy, because they get to the heart of your question on reformulating people's views away from modernism and postmodernism.
Janice
I think reformulating pre-modern concepts for a post-modern world gets to the heart of it. Post-moderns spin history and tradition into a post-modern weave that, no matter how you cut it, is post-modern. Post-modernism itself, must be debunked.
A great book that I ran across in my studies is Etienne Gilson's ,The Unity of Philosophical Experience, which Gilson shows that what the Church calls "perennial philosophy" or Thomistic philosophy, is a philosophical thread that runs through ALL types of philosophical thinking. Even Derrida's absurd "Deconstructionism" HAS to, by necessity, rely on "constructionistic" terminology, or ontological realistic thinking to define his grand, stoopid scheme of signs (language) not conveying reality. Derrida can't deny it; our minds were made to know things "as such" which is the basis of language, even if our language is used to oppress and control others. In fact, any world view that denies our ability to know reality "as such" must rely on the ontological and epistemological principles found in Realism in order to debunk it. They refute themselves by using Realism to debunk it. It's total nonsense. Any "something" whether it is a thing, or a thought of a thing, IS STILL A THING! Post-moderns have not taken the time or energy to think this through. And, if they value what they feel over what they think, the very act of valuing requires thinking!
I find that this must be the strategy that is to be employed with post-moderns, who don't value objective reality so much as the integrity of our subjective response to what we believe. The post-modern must be asked, "Why is integrity so important?" Is this a subjective value only, and if so, why is it universally sought?" IF we can find a means to create a forum where these questions can be asked, where the post-modern listener actually invites us to debunk their thinking, THEN, we have something!
I can't think of a means other than dialogue to allow for this to occur in a spirit of charity. I also can't think of anything more difficult to create. Think of it, do we naturally look for people to prove that our convictions are in error? I know I don't! And when it occurs, my visceral reaction is usually one of resentment! This is why the difficult work of pre-evangelism must be just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as any evangelical efforts that directly communicate the Catholic Gospel.
If this enterprise can be done within proximity of the Real Presence, praise God, let's do it! However, if the truth of the Real Presence is something they are not ready for yet, then, we bide our time. Jesus himself did this, having had much to say to the disciples on the eve of His death, but he refrained from telling them; they just weren't ready for it yet. I think we may have to use similar restraint until our listeners are open enough to the concepts of the sacramental principle without treating the Lord and His Presence with disdain.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting anything close to a type of Protestant presentation of the Gospel. No Protestant can touch this without themselves being drawn into the Catholic faith.
Post a Comment
<< Home